About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
plitations for civil liberties questions, potentially foreign policy questions. i want to listen for a second to president bush after 9/11 just as a reminder where we were as we talked about what happened in that moment. let's take a listen. >> on september 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. our war on terror begins without data. but it does not end there. it will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. [ applause ] >> so this set out the parameters,ary that we have been working under for the past decade or more. >> yeah. that was the global war on terror. there was a big gap between that rhetoric we just heard and the legal authority that the president actually had, which under the 2001 authorization of force was to only pursue al qaeda, the taliban and groups directly found responsible for 9/11. we'll continue to have that legal friction both on civil liberties and foreign policy questions. the first instinct to combat is that people are rightfully outraged at these killers. part of what they want to do is
not only a lost opportunity domestically. the foreign policy of this also. the most interesting thing that reagan did early on in foreign policy was the air traffic controller strike and toughness at times at home have repercussions aboeroad. this story got lost because of the boston bombings. >> but helps new awax. you only have to send that message once or twice to have one person go back and go, he is crazy. you know what he just told me? he said he was going to destroy me. >> what the president, what president obama, for reasons not only to him and his nature, clearly does not do or cannot do is something that lyndon johnson did do and this story has been repeated too many times for it not to be apockrifal. frank church a senator from idaho opposed senator johnson on an element of vietnam policy and another senator, i forget which one, wanted a line in an appropriations bill for a dam in his state. and he was on the fence with regard to lyndon johnson's view on vietnam policy. he called the president specifically asking, i need this. kou help me get it? and the president of the un
.o. toward national security and foreign policy which is to say to lighten the american footprint in the reasoning, but to deal with these threats of so that's one point. the other thing is, i don't think that barack obama considers the drones a panacea in the war on terror. and one of his top national security advisers said to me, he sees it as an important tactical weapon that has strategic implications. but mostly, he sees it as an opportunity to try to prevent the next attack in the united states. so he was pretty hard nosed about that. so that's where he is. >> richard, you know, i can make moral and legal arguments for codifying our drone program. the rules of engagement and i have in the past. there is also a very practical argument for getting this down on paper. and increasing the transparency on it. when, not if, when bad actors get their hands on the same technology that we have, and use it in terrible ways, we really lose our ability to lean on our allies and world bodies and ask them to sanction or punish these bad actors for an unaccountable drone program when the ma
the implications here in terms of foreign policy and possibly national security and how the white house responds in the coming days. first before we do that, i want to play some sound from dzhokah tsarnaev's uncle who came and spoke to the press earlier this morning, talking about check nia, the checken identity in the united states, let's play a little of that sound. >> hatred to those who were able to settle themselves. these are the only reasons i can imagine of. anything else, anything else to do with religion, with islam, that's a fraud. it's a fake. >> "the new york times" white house correspondent, peter baker is with us. peter, thanks for joining us, you were the moscow bureau chief for four years and covered the second chechen war. a lot of folks in america are hearing the word chechnya for the first time and don't understand the dynamics between chechnya, russia and the united states. can you give us a little primer about the sort of tumult in the region? >> it's a good question. we're learning a lot today, a lot of americans haven't focused on what has been chilling situation for many
school massacre. over 300 killed, mostly children. the moscow metro bombing, 39 people killed. foreign policy has an interesting anal a sysianalysis. chernen writes the numerous terror strikes have not been included in the short list of major terrorist attacks, america's 9/11, london's 7-7, and spain. instead, russia was placed in a different category where like in israel, terrorism was deemed a response to the government's repression, rather than an attack against humanity as such. that's obviously one person's take. in the broader conversation about global terror, those attacks are not often included in the same list. >> although if you are living in moscow or living in russia, you would certainly say they were terrorism. the russians did at the time say they were attacks of terrorism. a conversation we're having now is a reminder of why we do need to know what's happening around the world. why it matters what's happening in chechnya, the capital was flattened during the war there. that chows of chechens have been killed and at some point we have to wake up to the fact that the world
. and really at the heart of it is the fact that one of obama's enduring legacies when it comes to foreign policy, he has solidified assassination as an essential component of policy. >> they can do it in the shadows, as you pointed out. in the book, i would say there hasn't been a lot of public resistance aside from people like you and others in the press. how have they done this without facing much resistance? publicly or inside the government from people who should be stepping up and saying, wait a minute, we can't kill u.s. citizens without due process? >> right, i think there's no question that if john mccain had won the election in 2008 or mitt romney had won it in 2012 that liberals would be screaming about this stuff and saying, you know, that -- there would be this thing, war crimes, we should do impeachment and the reality is that i think a lot of people -- and i think this is sincere. a lot of people so fed up with the iraq war, perceived as the sort of crimes of the bush administration they wanted it to end and the obama administration has sold people a bill of goods. the idea
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6